Re: DevFS vs. udev

Ed Tomlinson
2003-12-23T13:02:30Z

On December 23, 2003 07:37 am, Marcelo Bezerra wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 09:12, Xavier Bestel wrote:
>
> > Le mar 23/12/2003 à 12:51, Bradley W. Allen a écrit :
> >
> > > DevFS was written by an articulate person who solved a lot of
> > > problems. udev sounds more like a thug who's smug about winning,
> > > not explaining himself, saying things like "oh, the other guy
> > > disappeared, so who cares, you have to use my code, too bad it sucks".
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I've spent two hours on this problem, and that's absurd;
> >
> >
> > Man, you've convinced me !
> > You've spent *two* hours on this problem ? Woah, these K-H and Viro
> > guys must be dorks if they don't subscribe to your theories. Who are
> > they to think their opinion matters more than yours, who spent *two*
> > hours on this problem ?
> >
> > Are you the new DevFS's maintainer ?
>
> In spite you trying to make him sound foolish, I still think he has some
> good points. DevFS works great and it never did something that was
> broken for me, so I see no point in replacing it. Maybe Greg K-H and Al
> Viro can step in an enlighten us once and for all.

They have. There are technical reasons. From a technical point of view devfs
is _broken_ and cannot be fixed without major efforts. It has be discovered
that things can be done in user space (udev 10 had to be slowed down - it
was too fast and the kernel was not keeping up...). So devfs was made
obsolete.

Not listening or like the reasons does not change them.

Ed Tomlinson